A diplomatic memo to the U.S - World - ambassador taken to task over remarks on Canada's position on Iraq - Excerpt

Dear Ambassador Paul Cellucci,

Your recent remarks about Canada's policy with respect to Iraq were inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive. Prime Minister Chretien is maintaining a delicate balance between U.S. pressure and Canadian opinion--a familiar position for Canadian Prime Ministers--and he will not tell you to go pound sand. However, someone should.

Fundamentally, you argue that the United States would instantly come to the aid of Canada in an emergency, and Canada should therefore participate in your ill-advised attack on Iraq.

"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," you are quoted as saying. "There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family." Codswallop. And that's diplomatic.

The primary threat to Canadian security has always been the United States of America--Louisbourg in 1745. We were at war once more in 1812. The birth of Canada in 1867 was prompted by fears of a U.S. invasion. That's why our railroad runs along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, far from the U.S. border.

Do you remember "manifest destiny," the 1840's U.S. doctrine that held that your country had a God-given mission to rule all of North America? Do you remember "Fifty-four-forty or fight," the slogan that rallied Americans to threaten an invasion in 1902 over the Alaska boundary? Yours is the only country, which has ever invaded ours, and it would do so again in a wink if it thought its interests here were seriously threatened.

And how does your sentimental mantra of perpetual willingness to spring to our assistance apply to the First World War, which we entered in 1914, while you stayed out for three years? We went to war against Hitler in 1939, while you were moved to join your sister democracies only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor two years later. A million Canadians fought in World War II, and 45,000 died. We need no lectures from Americans about the defence of liberty and democracy.

Nevertheless, despite the strains of our history, we are probably as close as any two nations in the world. Our two nations fought together not only in two World Wars, but also to repel the invasions of South Korea in 1949 and Kuwait in 1991. And when great catastrophe strikes without warning, our people have indeed been there for each other. Our chance to reciprocate came on September 11, 2001, when Canadian communities took in, on an instant's notice, 40,000 passengers from U.S. planes forced down by the terrorist attacks. We probably gave more immediate and practical assistance to Americans than any other country. Yet when your President later thanked the nations for their help, he did not mention Canada.

The Iraq conflict, however, is not an unforeseen disaster, but a deliberate choice. Your president has squandered a worldwide outpouring of sympathy and solidarity in less than two years--an astounding diplomatic debacle. Your own remarks, with their dark hints of economic revenge, are entirely consistent with the Bush administration's policy of diplomacy by bullying, bribing and threatening.

A huge body of opinion--even in the U.S. and Britain--judges this war to be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism. Your government appears to have forgotten Osama bin Laden, and not to have noticed that the September, 11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi. They lived not in Baghdad but in Hamburg and San Diego. The Iraq campaign is a sideshow, a grudge match and a distraction. It will breed more martyrs and more terrorists.

Good citizens and good friends oppose bad policies. By telling you the truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but they are not your enemies. That is the message you should take back to the White House, whether or not there is anyone there who will understand it.

Sincerely,

Silver Donald Cameron (Who writes for the Halifax Herald, where a longer edition of this appeared on March 26.)

COPYRIGHT 2003 Catholic New Times, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group